Complaints

[ReVo]

It's that way here now.  And it's less than a dozen voices.  Bad apples and barrels.

We represent the half of the game's population that has already left.

[maxy]

It's that way here now.  And it's less than a dozen voices.  Bad apples and barrels.

you nailed it Hap , maybe some of those pie-holes could get stuffed with some bad apples , this sim is awesome IMO

[Brooke]

There are people in the world who have the following misconceptions.

1.  A company owes me an explanation whenever I ask for one.
2.  If I have a suggestion, the company should implement it.
3.  A company should let me be an annoying jerk if I want to be.
4.  My $x means 1-3 are my rights.
5.  If I quit, that will show them.
6.  The 1st Amendment means that I have the right of freedom of speech in a private forum.
7.  If a company doesn't give me reasons for something, it means that they haven't thoroughly evaluated it.

[kilo2]

There are people in the world who have the following misconceptions.

1.  A company owes me an explanation whenever I ask for one. If the issue is serious and a group of customers have the same issue yea they do.
2.  If I have a suggestion, the company should implement it.If I have a suggestion the company should at least hear it.
3.  A company should let me be an annoying jerk if I want to be.To an extent maybe.
4.  My $x means 1-3 are my rights.
5.  If I quit, that will show them.If 1-3 are not your "rights" than you have no other option than to vote with your wallet.
6.  The 1st Amendment means that I have the right of freedom of speech in a private forum.I haven't heard that one lately.
7.  If a company doesn't give me reasons for something, it means that they haven't thoroughly evaluated it.Maybe, how can we know any different if they don't at least try and inform their paying customers.

[Brooke]

1.  A company owes me an explanation whenever I ask for one. If the issue is serious and a group of customers have the same issue yea they do.
2.  If I have a suggestion, the company should implement it.If I have a suggestion the company should at least hear it.
3.  A company should let me be an annoying jerk if I want to be.To an extent maybe.
4.  My $x means 1-3 are my rights.
5.  If I quit, that will show them.If 1-3 are not your "rights" than you have no other option than to vote with your wallet.
6.  The 1st Amendment means that I have the right of freedom of speech in a private forum.I haven't heard that one lately.
7.  If a company doesn't give me reasons for something, it means that they haven't thoroughly evaluated it.Maybe, how can we know any different if they don't at least try and inform their paying customers.

1.  No.  A company can choose to do so or not, but they don't owe it to you or to a group of 15 out of out thousands of customers.
2.  You are conflating "hearing it", "implementing it," and "upper management discussing it with me".  They are all vastly different things.  The first usually happens.  The other two usually do not (unless the idea is a very good one that they agree with).
3.  No.  Annoying jerks are often a detriment to business.
5.  Yes.  That is in fact mostly how the world works and is (but only in aggregate) effective.
7.  A company almost always has reasons for things.  To assume otherwise is to be usually wrong.

What a lot of people here would benefit from is a reading of "How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Carnegie.  It is a great book.  A lot of people here employ techniques that are best suited to minimizing their ability to influence people and to get things done.

[kilo2]

1.  No.  A company can choose to do so or not, but they don't owe it to you or to a group of 15 out of out thousands of customers.
2.  You are conflating "hearing it", "implementing it," and "upper management discussing it with me".  They are all vastly different things.  The first usually happens.  The other two usually do not (unless the idea is a very good one that they agree with).
3.  No.  Annoying jerks are often a detriment to business.
5.  Yes.  That is in fact mostly how the world works and is (but only in aggregate) effective.
7.  A company almost always has reasons for things.  To assume otherwise is to be usually wrong.

What a lot of people here would benefit from is a reading of "How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Carnegie.  It is a great book.  A lot of people here employ techniques that are best suited to minimizing their ability to influence people and to get things done.

2. No I am not. I meant what I said exactly how I said it.
3. Most people are not normally annoying jerks. You may want to find out why they are angry.
5. It is not always about having an effect on the business as a whole. If a company did a person wrong(perceived or not) why would they continue to knowingly support that company with their cash?
7. If they do why not share?

[Brooke]

2. No I am not. I meant what I said exactly how I said it.
3. Most people are not normally annoying jerks. You may want to find out why they are angry.
5. It is not always about having an effect on the business as a whole. If a company did a person wrong(perceived or not) why would they continue to knowingly support that company with their cash?
7. If they do why not share?

2.  OK, then you will usually be satisfied for that one at least.  If you send a suggestion to a company via customer-support channels, someone in the company will see it usually.
3.  There are some people here who usually are annoying jerks -- and they often have a set of picky reasons individual to them on why they are unhappy.
5.  They don't have to.  If they like what they get from the company more than they like their $x in cash, they will stay, and if not, they will leave.
7.  Because it takes work to share, and then you have malicious people who will do their best to distort the response, pick it apart, and argue with it.  Those are the main reasons companies don't respond (except for companies where there is liability, too -- that is another main one).

[Changeup]

There are people in the world who have the following misconceptions.

1.  A company owes me an explanation whenever I ask for one.
2.  If I have a suggestion, the company should implement it.
3.  A company should let me be an annoying jerk if I want to be.
4.  My $x means 1-3 are my rights.
5.  If I quit, that will show them.
6.  The 1st Amendment means that I have the right of freedom of speech in a private forum.
7.  If a company doesn't give me reasons for something, it means that they haven't thoroughly evaluated it.

Opinions are different than sarcasm.  Sarcasm gets met with sarcasm.

[kilo2]

2.  OK, then you will usually be satisfied for that one at least.  If you send a suggestion to a company via customer-support channels, someone in the company will see it usually.
3.  There are some people here who usually are annoying jerks -- and they often have a set of picky reasons individual to them on why they are unhappy.
5.  They don't have to.  If they like what they get from the company more than they like their $x in cash, they will stay, and if not, they will leave.
7.  Because it takes work to share, and then you have malicious people who will do their best to distort the response, pick it apart, and argue with it.  Those are the main reasons companies don't respond (except for companies where there is liability, too -- that is another main one).

2. Normally, yes.
3. Of course individuals will have individual reasons to be upset. You are looking for reoccurring themes among those with their "set of picky reasons."
5. As you know not all people behave that rationally Brooke.
7. It does take work to share. That is why you pay a fee.

[grizz441]

Is it a good business strategy to be banning players?

[Hap]

If their absence makes things thrive, of course. 

[grizz441]

If their absence makes things thrive, of course.  

Guess we'll see!

[Changeup]

If their absence makes things thrive, of course.  

I took Grizz's point to mean in a time of business turmoil.  My opinion is the turmoil that some players feel about dwindling numbers.  If that is true, banning players is akin to banning revenue.  Things cannot thrive on less revenue.  MBA 101...businesses cannot save their way to prosperity. 

Ofourse doubling the monthly cost or even tripling it would help revenue but that's a whole different problem for the 100 players thriving in the MA at peak time.

[Ack-Ack]

Is it a good business strategy to be banning players?

If those players are detrimental to business or game play, then the answer is a definite Yes.

ack-ack

[grizz441]

If those players are detrimental to business or game play, then the answer is a definite Yes.
ack-ack

I agree.